Robert Wright sets up many straw men and knocks them down in Against pro-Israel. He cynically lists “symptoms” of being anti-Israel.
Symptom no. 1: Believing that Israel shouldn’t build more settlements in East Jerusalem. President Obama holds this belief, and that seems to be the reason that Gary Bauer, who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, deems Obama’s administration “the most anti-Israel administration in U.S. history.” Bauer notes that the East Jerusalem settlements are “entirely within the city of Jerusalem” and that Jerusalem is “the capital of Israel.”
That’s artful wording, but it doesn’t change the fact that East Jerusalem, far from being part of “the capital of Israel,” isn’t even part of Israel. East Jerusalem lies beyond Israel’s internationally recognized, pre-1967 borders. And the common assertion that Israel “annexed” East Jerusalem has roughly the same legal significance as my announcing that I’ve annexed my neighbor’s backyard. In 1980 the United Nations explicitly rejected Israel’s claim to possess East Jerusalem. And the United States, which normally vetoes U.N. resolutions that Israel finds threatening, chose not to do so in this case.
The construction “settlements in East Jerusalem” is odd. First of all, last I checked there’s no place on the map named “East Jerusalem.” (He capitalized “East” as if it were part of the name of the place. And if it isn’t capitalized, well, then it’s geographically incorrect.) And what does he mean by “settlements?” Does he mean new neighborhoods. Wright has so loaded his language. But he’s obfuscating here.
Until the Obama administration made an issue over Ramat Shlomo, it was agreed that areas such as Ramat Shlomo would be part of Jerusalem in any final status arrangement. So appealing to Israel’s “international recognized borders” confuses the issue rather than clarifying anything.
Symptom no. 2: Thinking that some of Israel’s policies, and America’s perceived support of them, might endanger American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (by, for example, giving Jihadist recruiters rhetorical ammunition). This concern was reportedly expressed last week by Vice President Joe Biden to Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. And General David Petraeus is said to worry about the threat posed to American troops — and to America’s whole strategic situation — by the perception of American favoritism toward Israel.
Identifying threats to American troops is part of a general’s job, and it seems to me Petraeus could honestly conclude — without help from dark “anti-Israel” impulses — that some of those threats are heightened by the Israel-Palestine conflict and America’s relationship to it. But Max Boot, writing on Commentary’s Web site, seems to disagree; if Petraeus indeed holds such opinions, that’s a sign of “anti-Israel sentiment,” in Boot’s view.
Gen. Petraeus said – whether in the prepared statement or in his shorter actual presentation – a lot of other things too. He pointed out that Iran is aiding Al Qaeda. He noted that Hizballah was subverting the government of Lebanon and acting in violation of Security Council resolution 1701. Somehow these observations escaped the notice of the anti-Israel community. The only part of the Petraeus report they’re aware of is the general’s claim that Israeli actions were endangering American soldiers, a report that was explicitly denied by General Petraeus.
Wright continues:
Actually, it seems to me that if we were all “pro-Israel” in this sense, that would be bad for Israel.
If Israel’s increasingly powerful right wing has its way, without constraint from American criticism and pressure, then Israel will keep building settlements. And the more settlements get built — especially in East Jerusalem — the harder it will be to find a two-state deal that leaves Palestinians with much of their dignity intact. And the less dignity intact, the less stable any two-state deal will be.
Huh? What does he mean by “especially in East Jerusalem” (aside from the absurdities mentioned above)? Israel, as noted above, will keep Jerusalem in any final status deal; so the presence of Jews in Jerusalem even in Wright’s fictional “East Jerusalem” won’t affect the sacrosanct “contiguity” of a future Palestinian state. It’s funny that he’s so concerned about Palestinian dignity but ignores Jewish dignity that’s assaulted on a daily basis by the official Palestinian media. Wouldn’t that endanger the possibility of a two state solution? And “Israel’s powerful right wing” is a fiction. It’s a convenient boogeyman for shallow thinkers like Wright, but as I’ve pointed out many times, PM Netanyahu is a lot closer now to the views of Peace Now than to the views of Yitzchak Shamir. The right in Israel has shifted pretty far to the left in the past twenty years.
There’s really no more that Wright writes, that isn’t some version of this drivel. But he adds a postscript in which he describes (appropriating Roger Cohen’s words) Jeffrey Goldberg as “Netanyahu’s stenographer.” That’s beyond ludicrous. Goldberg is just as anti-settler as is Wright. He is however not anti-Israel. And Goldberg is not especially sympathetic to Netanyahu either.
Wright argues that the new “pro-Israel” is really “anti-Israel” or vise versa. He is based on misperceptions and driven by a blind hatred of Israel. There is no way to contort his argument as being “pro-Israel.”
Crossposted on Soccer Dad
This, of course, is part of the “NewSpeak” and “DoubleThink” that the Israel haters believe. Robert Wright, like so many others, willingly confuses “narrative” with actual facts. Aided and abetted by our government run media. And so supports those who would destroy the soul of tiny, democratic, anti-fascist Israel.
Keep fighting the good fight Meyrl.
But you must always remember that “Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.” :-}
In 1948 Israel was born, and immediately attacked by the combined Arab armies in their quest to destroy the Jewish people and their country. The Jewish quarter of Jerusalem was taken over by the Jordanian attacking army, all remnants of synagogues, cemeteries, and other Jewish shrines were desecrated or destroyed, and the holy Western Wall was off limits for Jews with ZERO protest by the UN. The Jordan conquerors and their lackeys then called it east Jerusalem, similar to what the communists did to East Berlin. After the six day war Israel had reunited Jerusalem as one vibrant city, yet there are those utopian “one world†appeasers that still want to believe that if Israel only withdrew to the pre 1967 boundaries that peace would magically break out and all would sing kumbaya, effing idiots!